Construct validation of a Frailty Index, an HIV
Index and a Protective Index from a clinical
HIV database
Iacopo FranconiID1*, Olga Theou2, Lindsay Wallace2, Andrea MalagoliID1,
Cristina Mussini1, Kenneth RockwoodID2, Giovanni Guaraldi1
1 Infectious Diseases Unit, The University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy, 2 Geriatric Medicine
Research Unit, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University& Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Abstract
Background
Standard care for HIV clinical practice has started focusing on age-related problems, but despite this recent change physicians involved in HIV care do not often screen HIV patients for frailty. Our aim was to construct three indexes from an HIV clinical database (i.e. Frailty Index, (FI), HIV Index, (HIVI), and Protective Index (PI)) and to assess levels of frailty, HIV severity and demographic and protective lifestyle factors among HIV patients.
Methods and findings
We included data from 1612 patients who attended an Italian HIV clinic between September 2016 and December2017 (mean±SD age: 53.1±8 years, 73.9% men).We used 92 routine variables collected by physicians and other health care professionals to construct three indexes: a 72-item FI (biometric, psychiatric, blood test, daily life activities, geriatric syn-dromes and nutrition data), a item HIVI (immunological, viral and therapeutics) and a 10-item PI (income, education, social engagement, and lifestyle habits data)(the lower the FI and HIVI scores, and the higher the PI scores, the lower the risk for participants).The FI, HIVI and PI scores were 0.19±0.08, 0.48±0.17 and 0.62±0.13, respectively. Men had higher FI (0.19±0.08 vs 0.18±0.08; p = 0.010) and lower HIVI (0.47±0.18 vs 0.50±0.15; p = 0.038) scores than women. FI and HIVI scores both increased 1.9% per year of age (p<0.001), whereas the PI decreased 0.2% per year (p<0.050). In addition, the FI score increased 1.6% and the PI score decreased 0.5% per year of HIV infection (p<0.001).
Conclusion
It is feasible to assess levels of frailty, HIV severity and protective lifestyle factors in HIV patients using data from a clinical database. Frailty levels are high among HIV patients and even higher among older patients and those with a long duration of HIV. Future studies need to examine the ability of the three indices to predict adverse health outcomes such as hospitalization and mortality.
a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Franconi I, Theou O, Wallace L, Malagoli
A, Mussini C, Rockwood K, et al. (2018) Construct validation of a Frailty Index, an HIV Index and a Protective Index from a clinical HIV database. PLoS
ONE 13(10): e0201394.https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0201394
Editor: Alessandra Marengoni, University of
Brescia, ITALY
Received: February 21, 2018 Accepted: July 13, 2018 Published: October 17, 2018
Copyright:©2018 Franconi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: According to the
dispositions of the Ethical Committee of the Vast North Area of Emilia – Comitato Etico dell’Area Vasta Emilia Nord - to ensure patients’ privacy, data regarding ethnicity, sexual life and health status are available upon request. Interested researchers may direct data access queries to our protocol office [email protected]
Funding: The authors received no specific funding
Introduction
The number of people older than 50 years living with HIV has increased from 76.000 in 1990 to 880.000 in 2016 in Western and Central Europe and North America [1]. This increase likely reflects both higher rates of new diagnoses in people older than 50 years (7.4% in 1990 vs 15.6% in 2017) [2] and longer life expectancy due to better antiretroviral therapies [3]. An important consequence is that more people who live with HIV are susceptible to common geriatric syndromes which represents a challenge to conventional medical management. For example, Green and colleagues [4] found that nearly half of people living with HIV were aged 50 or older, of whom 30–50% were affected by geriatric syndromes such as delirium, inconti-nence and falls. This suggests that many people aging with HIV will be frail. Possible explana-tions of this clinical phenomenon include the association between HIV specific factors, chronic inflammation and dysregulation in the immune system along with a higher burden of multiple concomitant noninfectious age-related comorbidities (e.g. cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus and osteopo-rosis). These HANA (HIV-Associated-Non-AIDS) chronic conditions occur at a younger age in HIV positive individuals compared with their HIV-counterparts and are associated with higher rates of polypharmacy [5,6], long-term ART toxicity, and changes in body fat and mus-cle composition. They are also related to higher prevalence of behavioral and social risk factors and worse socio-economic conditions in HIV positive patients [7–11]. Indeed, as reported by Althoff and colleagues [12], HIV infected adults are at higher risk of myocardial infraction, end stage renal disease and non-AIDS related cancer. To this point it is important to mention that prevalence of risk behaviors, such as smoking, drinking and having an hypercaloric diet, and comorbid conditions known to be well established cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, is higher among people living with HIV [7–11,13,14]. Finally, the authors of another cohort study (the AGEhIV Cohort Study) described higher prevalence of age-associated comorbidities and respective risk factors when comparing HIV infected with uninfected individuals [15].
Frail people experience a poor resolution of homeostasis even after minor stress events. Frailty affects multiple organ systems, in particular, it has been associated with the develop-ment of dedevelop-mentia and cognitive impairdevelop-ment [16,17], lower levels of testosterone [18] and higher levels of diurnal cortisol [19], sarcopenia [20], and immune system dysfunction that makes the frail individual susceptible to recurrent infections [21]. Therefore, frailty can be understood as a state of increased vulnerability among people of the same age which increases risk of falls, disability, dependency, hospitalization, institutionalization, and death [16]. Many clinical tools have been suggested to operationalize frailty. Among them, the Frailty Phenotype and Frailty Index are the most applied in HIV medicine. Frailty Phenotype consists of five dif-ferent items such as: self-reported weight loss and exhaustion, impairments at standard physi-cal performance tests (walking gait speed, chair to stand test) and reduced physiphysi-cal activity (evaluated through questionnaires) [22]. Another well-validated assessment tool in geriatric medicine is the Frailty Index (FI). This tool has been applied in various clinical settings and is based on the accumulation of health deficits approach [23]. Multiple health deficits or prob-lems can be included in the FI such as signs and symptoms of age-related diseases, impair-ments in activities of daily living, and comorbidities. Our group has previously studied correlations and associations between these two health measures and clinical outcomes in PLWH with similar results, however, FI showed stronger association with age, nadir CD4 count, comorbidities, falls, and disability [24]. Having a single score that is able to depict global health status and trajectory with data collected in everyday practice and stored in clinical data-bases might add useful information to clinical evaluation, beyond HIV related problems. A
Competing interests: The authors have declared
patient’s FI score is calculated by the ratio of health deficits present, dividing by all variables evaluated, and it ranges from 0 to 1 [25]. The FI has been shown to predict adverse health out-comes better than chronological age [26]. FIs developed in clinical settings other than HIV medicine have been able to predict adverse outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, falls and re-admission [27–29]. In the HIV field, our group has previously developed a 37-item FI based mostly on blood test variables which was able to predict multimorbidity and mortality in HIV positive people independent of markers of HIV disease severity [30]. Its use allows quantifica-tion of the risk of adverse outcomes in people living with HIV. Accordingly, VACS Index, which is a deficit accumulation index like the FI but was not developed to measure frailty, has been utilized as a prognostic tool for survival [31]. In addition, another study has used an FI in an HIV population to demonstrate association between frailty and higher levels of innate immune activation [32].
In contemporary HIV care, initial goals of therapy such as undetectable HIV viral load and the achievement of normal CD4+ T-cell count represent only the starting point of a general health assessment [33]. Great concern has risen among HIV researchers and physicians due to the lack of consensus on defining “geriatric age” in PLWH [4,34,35]. This is due to the higher prevalence of geriatric syndromes and frailty at a younger age in PLWH. Therefore, it is important to assess healthy aging in PLWH and to screen for frailty among these subjects. Growing consensus suggests that implementing geriatric tools in clinical practice to depict health trajectories across aging HIV cohorts may be useful [35]. This has led to the develop-ment of a new discipline within HIV medicine termed “geriatric HIV medicine” [36]. As part of an ongoing effort within our medical center to establish and promote geriatric HIV medi-cine, we are collecting a wide range of clinical information across multiple domains such as functional ability, cognition, physical and mental health, and socio-economic conditions. We also decided to include FP items as different variables of this new FI, in order to finally merge clinical information [37]. Indeed, exploring these domains represent the main innovation in this new FI compared to the previous one which was, as mentioned above, more laboratory oriented, and did not include many geriatric health variables.
The aim of our study was to construct three indices (i.e. Frailty Index, (FI), HIV Index, (HIVI), and Protective Index (PI)) using data stored in our clinical database in order to assess levels of frailty, HIV severity and demographic and protective lifestyle factors, which might positively affect the life of individuals aging with HIV. We also assessed the construct validity of these measures by evaluating their relationship with age and duration of HIV and by com-paring the FI with other FIs validated in other community dwelling samples other than HIV. Our future goal is to assess the predictive validity of these three indexes with the clinical end-points of hospital admission, institutionalization, disability and death.
Methods
Design and study sample
The Modena HIV Metabolic Clinic is a multidisciplinary tertiary level care center which was established in 2004 at The University of Modena and Reggio Emilia in Italy. Our clinic serves patients with HIV from this region as well as across Italy. People from other regions are fol-lowed by a physician in their hometown and receive clinical care annually. The Modena HIV Metabolic Clinic uses a comprehensive assessment technique to examine and follow the meta-bolic profiles, comorbidities and, more recently, the physical, emotional, cognitive and social function of people living with HIV [38,39]. Data are collected from blood tests, nuclear medi-cine DXA scan, self-reported surveys, face-to-face interviews and clinical evaluation by physi-cians, occupational therapists, dieticians and psychologists.
In our study, we included data from 1612 consecutively recruited individuals who visited the clinic from September 2016 to December2017. The study has been approved by the Research Ethics Board of The University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and all participants provided written informed consent.
Frailty index (FI)
An FI was built according to standard procedures described by Searle and colleagues [40]. Can-didate deficits had to explore multiple health domains and organ systems such as blood tests, emotional status, ability to handle daily activities, physical performances, nutrition and comor-bidities. In addition, to be included in the FI, variables had to meet the following criteria: (i) associated with age (not just attributes related to age, such as “greying hair”); (ii) increased prev-alence with age; (iii)<20% missing cases; (iii) when combined, measures had to capture multi-ple organ dysfunction; (iiiii) ordinarily collected and stored in our clinical database at every visit at MHMC. A total of 72 items across different domains were selected to construct the FI, which included: urinary incontinence [41], hearing loss, falls and consequent fractures, bio-morpho-logical data including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, Body Mass Index, waist circumference and sarcopenia [42], global nutrition, protein intake, central obesity, bone min-eral density, self-reported unintentional weight loss, polypharmacy [43], gait speed, chair stand test [44], 17 blood tests including hormone levels, 10 mental health questions measured with the CES-D depression scale [45], 8 instrumental activities of daily living items [46,47], 6 global health status questions from the EQ5D5L scale [48], 4 respiratory function questions from the St. George Respiratory questionnaire [49],and 8 comorbidities [50–54] (Table A inS1 Table).
Every variable was recoded into a 0 (no deficit) to 1 (presence/full deficit) score. Partici-pants with mild or moderate impairment received a corresponding score that indicated the proportion of the deficit (e.g. 0.25). Variables with less than 1% or more than 80% of the partic-ipants having the health deficit were excluded. For example, a single IADL question concern-ing the ability to handle medication had to be excluded because the deficit was present in less than 1% of the study population [40]. The FI score was calculated as the sum of all deficits scores divided by the sum of all variables evaluated for each participant. Scores ranged from 0 (absence of all deficits) to 1 (presence of all deficits). An FI was not calculated for participants who had missing data for more than 20% of variables (14 missing variables; 105 participants, 6.5% of study population) [55]. The FI was used in the analysis as both continuous and dichot-omous variable using the ()0.25 cut-point. This cut-off point was chosen because of the nature of community dwelling samples [56]. FI scores in these populations tend to be lower than clinical samples and are associated with age. This reflects the concept that levels of frailty in community dwelling samples are lower than clinical ones [56].
HIV Index (HIVI)
An HIV Index (HIVI) was constructed using data collected as part of standard HIV clinical practice according to current clinical national and international guidelines [57,58]. Variables included were: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 1993 revised classification system for HIV infection [59], CD4+ Nadir, duration of HIV, time between diagnosis and ARV start, 3rdline of ARV or more (as a surrogate of drug resistance or toxicity), HIV/AIDS related cancers, presence or absence of lipodystrophy (using MACS criteria) [60], current CD4 + T-cell count, HIV Viral load, and CD4-CD8 ratio. Each variable was recoded into a 0 (no deficit) to 1(full expression of a deficit) (See Table B inS1 Tablefor HIVI variables coding). Similar to the construction of the FI, the HIVI was calculated as the ratio between the number of HIV-related health deficits present divided by the total number of HIV variables collected
(i.e.n= 10 HIV variables). HIVI was not calculated when participants had more than 20% of missing data (n= 50 participants, 3.1% of study population). We also constructed a shorter HIVI excluding duration of HIV so that we can investigate the relationship between HIVI and duration of HIV. Since this is the first study where we attempted to create an HIV index, no cut-off points have been established to differentiate grades of HIV disease severity.
Protective Index (PI)
To construct a PI we used the demographic and lifestyle variables routinely collected in The Modena HIV Metabolic Clinic. In agreement with previous work from our research group [61] we considered demographic and lifestyle choices as “protective factors”. Variables were chosen from those included in common Social Vulnerability Indices [62,63]. The following variables were included in the PI: ethnicity, level of education, profession, income, physical activity [64], injection drug use (past or current), marital status, domestic partnership, alcohol use (high con-sumption: more than two glasses of wine/beer/spirits for five or more days per week; moderate consumption: more than two glasses of wine/beer/spirits for two to five days a week; mild: more than two glasses of wine/beer/spirits once a week or less), smoking habit (in order to clearly identify individuals with no deficit, (never smokers) and to separate them from the rest of the study population, we decided to lower the limit of “heavy smokers” from 20 pack-years to 10, therefore our coding for smoking habit is as follows: high consumption: more than 10 pack-years; moderate consumption: less than 10 pack- year; no consumption: never smokers). Eth-nicity was recoded as “Italian vs non-Italian”. This is because language barriers can impede nor-mal social functioning and can also influence access to health care and communication with health care professionals. In addition, ethnicities other than Italian-Caucasian included in the MHMC study population typically includes people from low-income countries, who marginal-ized and live in poor socioeconomic environments. Each variable was recoded into a 0 (full defi-cit) to 1(no deficit—protective) (See Table C inS1 Tablefor coding of variables). The PI was not calculated when participants had more than 20% of missing data (n= 426 participants, 26.4% of study population). As with the HIVI, this is the first study to propose a PI in an HIV population, no cut-points have been established to differentiate levels of ‘protection’.
Statistical analysis
We assessed the distribution of the three indices using histograms (Figs1A,2Aand3A). Patients were divided into groups according to age (less than40, 41–50, 51–60 and>>60 years of age) and duration of HIV infection (10, 11–20,21–30,>30 years of infection). We chose 0.25 as the FI cut-off point to determine frail individuals because 0.25 is the most com-monly used FI cut point in the literature [65]. Prevalence of frailty and mean FI, HIVI, and PI scores were calculated for the study population in relation to sex, age groups and duration of HIV. Differences in mean index scores were examined using one-way ANOVA with adjust-ment for multiple pair-wise comparisons. Differences in prevalence of frailty within age groups, duration of HIV groups and sex were examined using non-parametric tests. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between the index score with age (FI, HIVI, PI) and duration of HIV (FI, PI). SPSS version 24 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) was used to perform statistical analyses.
Results
Our study included 1612 people, the mean age was 53.1±8.0 years (median 53, range21-84 years) and most were men (79.3%,n= 1157). The median duration of HIV was 22.0 (0–32) years, respectively. We were able to construct the FI for 1507 (93.5%) participants since the
Fig 1. FI characteristics. (A) Distribution of FI; (B) Association between FI and age.
Fig 2. HIVI characteristics. (A) Distribution of HIVI; (B) Association between FI and age.
Fig 3. PI characteristics. (A) Distribution of PI; (B) Association between FI and age.
patients with more than 20% missing variables were excluded. The lowest FI value was 0.02 and the highest was 0.55. Using the 0.25 FI cut-point we estimated that the prevalence of frailty among the participants in our study was 20.2%. Both mean FI and prevalence of frailty increased with age and with longer duration of HIV (p<0.001) (Table 1andFig 1B). Men had higher mean FI scores than did women (0.19±0.08 vs 0.18±0.08,p<0.05). Univariate lin-ear regression analysis between the natural log of FI (lnFI) and age showed a 1.9% increase in lnFI score per year of life. Univariate linear regression analysis between the natural log of FI (lnFI) and duration of HIV infection showed a 1.6% increase in lnFI score per year of infection (p<0.001).
A total of 1562 (96.7%) subjects met the criteria for the construction of HIVI. Mean±SD HIVI was 0.48±0.17, median HIVI 0.48, the lowest value was 0.00 and the highest value was 0.92. Mean HIVI was higher in women than in men (0.50±0.15 vs 0.47±0.18,p<0.05) and HIVI increased with age (Fig 2B). Univariate linear regression analysis between the natural log of HIVI and age showed an increase of 1.9% in lnHIVI per year (p<0.001). Using the shorter HIVI, which excluded duration of HIV from the index, we found that the lnHIVI
increased1.7% per year of infection (p<0.001).
A total of 1186 (73.6%) subjects met the criteria for the construction of PI. Mean±SD PI was 0.61±0.14). Median PI was 0.61, the lowest PI was 0.20 and the highest was 1.00. No statis-tically significant difference in PI score between men and women was found (0.61±0.13 vs 0.61
±0.14p>0.05). The PI showed overall reduction with increasing age (0.2% of decrease in lnPI per year of age,p= 0.019) (Fig 3B) and statistically significant differences in PI were found between participants of 41–50 years of age and those 51–60 years (PI = 0.63±0.12 vs 0.59±0.13,
p<0.001). Differences in PI were also statistically significant when comparing those with the longest duration of HIV (more than 30 years of infection) with the other 3 groups (p<0.05). Univariate linear regression between natural log of PI and duration of HIV showed an average decrease of 0.5% in the PI score per year of infection (p<0.001).
Table 1. FI score and prevalence of frailty (FI0.25) according to sex, age and duration of HIV.
Mean±SDFI N(%) of FI>0.25 Mean±SDHIVI Mean±SDPI
All patients (N= 1612) 0.19±0.08 325 (20.2%) 0.48±0.17 0.61±0.14 Sex Men (N= 1191) 0.19±0.08 238 (21.3%) 0.47±0.18 0.61±0.13 Women(N= 421) 0.18±0.08a 68 (17.5%) 0.50±0.15a 0.61±0.14 Age groups 40 years (N= 97) 0.12±0.06 1 (1.1%) 0.27±0.15 0.64±0.12 41–50 years (N= 422) 0.16±0.08a 49 (12.5%)a 0.42±0.18a 0.63±0.12 51–60 years (N= 829) 0.20±0.08a,b 183 (23.6%)a,b 0.52±0.15a,b 0.59±0.13b >60 years (N= 264) 0.21±0.07a,b 73 (29.4%)a,b 0.50±0.17a,b 0.61±0.14 Duration of HIV 10 years (N= 215) 0.15±0.08 18 (8.9%) 0.28±0.14+ 0.64±0.12 11-20years (N= 366) 0.17±0.08a 45 (13.1%) 0.43±0.18+,a 0.62±0.12
21-30years (N= 690) 0.19±0.08a,b 149 (23%)a,b
0.51±0.15+,a,b
0.62±0.13 >30years (N= 294) 0.22±0.08a,b,c 85 (30.4%)a,b
0.50±0.15+,a,b,c
0.56±0.14a,b,c astatistical significant different from first category
bstatistical significant different from second category cstatistical significant different from third category +shorter HIVI excluding duration of HIV https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201394.t001
Discussion
We showed that it is feasible to assess levels of frailty, HIV severity and protective factors in HIV patients using data collected from a clinical database. Levels of frailty and poor lifestyle factors are high among HIV patients and even higher among older HIV positive patients and those with a long duration of HIV. Since HIV negative and positive populations are different in terms of comorbidities, geriatric syndromes and social and environmental factors [4,18], no age limit has been set yet to define the elder population among HIV positive individuals, therefore, we decided to include all patients regardless of age. Due to the short period of obser-vation, major clinical endpoints could not be used to validate these three health indexes, how-ever, construct validation was performed, assessing the relationship with age and the rates of health deficit accumulation in comparison with other FI’s validated with clinical endpoints as hospital admission, institutionalization, disability and death [25,27–29]. Considering our pop-ulation is a community dwelling sample, levels of frailty were lower than those obtained from clinical samples as expected [25], as with the association with age (0.7 increase in mean FI per year), even if rates of deficit accumulation were slightly lower (1.9% of deficit accumulation per year vs 2.9 in other longitudinal observational studies).
We have analyzed and collected data from multiple health domains involving different health care professionals and obtaining 92 variables overall from 1612 patients. Not all included variables are routinely collected across clinics, but most of them are easy to assess, at least once per year. We were able to successfully build a 72-item FI, a 10-item HIV-Index, and a 10-item Protective index, and analyze their correlations with sex, age and duration of HIV. Compared to the previous 37-item FI validated in our clinic, this new FI explores more health domains, including IADLs, geriatric syndromes, comorbidities, depression quotient, and mal-nutrition, which are important comprehensive assessments. Distribution of the FI was right-skewed, the prevalence of frailty increased with chronological age and longer duration of HIV, and FI scores were higher in men than in women. We also created two new indices, one, the HIVI, using HIV-specific variables from the sample population, and the other, the PI, using demographic and lifestyle variables that could have a protective effect on individuals’ overall health. The HIVI frequency displayed a right skewed distribution. Women had higher rates of HIVI scores than men, and mean HIVI score increased across all four age groups. Duration of HIV was originally included as an item in the HIVI but a shorter version of HIVI without duration years of infection was calculated and found to be associated with duration of HIV. On the contrary, PI was left-skewed and showed a statistically significant reduction when com-paring people aged 41–50 years with people 51–60 years. The non-significant difference in PI for the other two age groups could be related to the smaller sample size. Interestingly, rates of protective factors accumulation reduced by 0.2 and 0.3 per year of age and HIV infection, respectively. No sex differences were found in PI.
Strengths and limitations
Our results should be interpreted with caution. Due to the short period of study we were not able to investigate the association between the FI, HIVI, and PI with common clinical out-comes such as hospitalization and mortality. Further, variables included in our study were rou-tinely collected as part of a comprehensive health assessment in our HIV clinic, but may not be feasible to collect in general practices. The complexity of the data and variables analyzed, and the broad age range of the study population would make it difficult to find a HIV negative con-trol group for comparison, therefore the lack of a concon-trol group is another study limitation. Our data showed trends similar to what has been reported in population studies; FI scores increased with age, had a limit below 0.7, and a mean increase of 1.9% of deficit accumulation
per year, which is slightly less than the average rates reported in community based longitudinal observational studies (2.9%) [56]. This can be explained by the relatively younger median age of the participants (53 years old, range 21–84) in our study compared to other study popula-tions [15,27,66], which were analyzed to operationalize the FI. The sample population used to construct the PI was smaller than the sample populations of both the FI and HIVI, because socio-environmental data was collected a few months after the beginning of the study period.
Despite these limitations, our medical center continues to evaluate a high number of health variables exploring biological, infectious, socio-environmental domains in a high-quality man-ner and is the first to create three different indices to assess overall health in the HIV aging population. Each of the FI, HIVI and PI show correlation with age (FI and HIVI had a positive correlation with age whether PI had a negative correlation), and even more importantly with duration of HIV infection, suggesting that duration of HIV infection might be a good predic-tor of biological aging in HIV individuals. These health indices could be interpreted as mea-sures of the general health and biological age of an individual. The large clinical sample, the high number of variables included, the relatively few missing data, and the multidisciplinary approach behind the concept of the three indices leads us to conclude that the FI, HIVI and PI might represent important measures, which could be considered an integral part of a compre-hensive health assessment in the HIV aging population.
Conclusions and clinical implications
Our study demonstrates that it is feasible to build health indexes from data stored in a clinical database. With the available data we were able to create a 72-item FI exploring multiple health domains, a 10 item HIV index and a 10 item Protective Index. Despite the great number of variables analyzed, the vast majority of them, especially the HIV and socio-economic variables, are easy to assess and can be obtained through questionnaires. Despite no cut-off points vali-dated for HIVI and PI, these two indexes are based on health variables, which have important clinical implications on patients’ health. Once built, health indexes are able to provide an over-all score for the health of the patient and can also be used to track health changes over time. Therefore, clinical utility of these health indexes lies in their ability to combine multiple vari-ables across different health domains to create a single score.
Future studies are needed to evaluate causal relationships between HIVI, PI and FI and how the HIVI and PI can predict the onset and progression of frailty. A key priority moving forward will be to validate and operationalize these three indices with clinical outcomes in external clinical settings. We aim to investigate this in depth in order to create a feasible clini-cal assessment tool, which is able to rapidly and easily assess general health status in the HIV aging population.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Health variables. (A) Frailty Index variables. (B) HIV Index variables. (C) Protective Index variables.
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Iacopo Franconi, Olga Theou, Lindsay Wallace, Cristina Mussini, Ken-neth Rockwood, Giovanni Guaraldi.
Data curation: Iacopo Franconi, Lindsay Wallace, Andrea Malagoli, Cristina Mussini, Gio-vanni Guaraldi.
Formal analysis: Iacopo Franconi, Andrea Malagoli, Giovanni Guaraldi. Investigation: Iacopo Franconi, Giovanni Guaraldi.
Methodology: Iacopo Franconi, Olga Theou, Lindsay Wallace, Kenneth Rockwood, Giovanni Guaraldi.
Project administration: Iacopo Franconi, Olga Theou, Cristina Mussini, Kenneth Rockwood, Giovanni Guaraldi.
Software: Andrea Malagoli.
Supervision: Olga Theou, Cristina Mussini, Kenneth Rockwood, Giovanni Guaraldi. Validation: Iacopo Franconi, Kenneth Rockwood, Giovanni Guaraldi.
Visualization: Kenneth Rockwood, Giovanni Guaraldi. Writing – original draft: Iacopo Franconi, Olga Theou.
Writing – review & editing: Olga Theou, Lindsay Wallace, Cristina Mussini, Kenneth Rock-wood, Giovanni Guaraldi.
References
1. Sabin CA, Reiss P. Epidemiology of ageing with HIV: what can we learn from cohorts? AIDS. 2017 Jun 1; 31 Suppl 2:S121–S128.
2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, WHO Regional Office for Europe. HIV/AIDS sur-veillance in Europe 2016. Stockholm: ECDC; 2017. Available from:https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/ publications-data/hivaids-surveillance-europe-2017-2016-data
3. Samji H, Cescon A, Hogg RS, Modur SP, Althoff KN, Buchacz K, et al. Closing the gap: increases in life expectancy among treated HIV-positive individuals in the United States and Canada. PLoS One 2013; 8:e81355https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081355PMID:24367482
4. Greene M, Covinsky KE, Valcour V, Miao Y, Madamba J, Lampiris H, et al. Geriatric syndromes in older HIV-infected adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015; 69:161–167.https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI. 0000000000000556PMID:26009828
5. Guaraldi G, Orlando G, Zona S, Menozzi M, Carli F, Garlassi E, et al. Premature age-related comorbidi-ties among HIV-infected persons compared with the general population. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 53:1120– 6.https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir627PMID:21998278
6. High KP, Brennan-Ing M, Clifford DB, Cohen MH, Currier J, Deeks SG, et al. HIV and aging: state of knowledge and areas of critical need for research: a report to the NIH Office of AIDS Research by the HIV and Aging Working Group. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndromes 2012; 60:S1–18.
7. Pathai S, Bajillan H, Landay AL, High KP. Is HIV a model of accelerated or accentuated aging? J Geron-tol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2014; 69:833–842.https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glt168PMID:24158766 8. Brothers TD, Kirkland S, Guaraldi G, Falutz J, Theou O, Johnston BL, et al. Frailty in people aging with
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. J Infect Dis 2014; 210: 1170–1179.https://doi.org/10. 1093/infdis/jiu258PMID:24903667
9. Guaraldi G, Stentarelli C, Zona S, Santoro A, Beghetto B, Carli F, et al. The natural history of HIV-asso-ciated lipodystrophy in the changing scenario of HIV infection. HIV Med 2014; 15:587–594.https://doi. org/10.1111/hiv.12159PMID:24750806
10. Rodriguez-Penney AT, Iudicello JE, Riggs PK, Doyle K, Ellis RJ, Letendre SL, et al. Co-morbidities in persons infected with HIV: increased burden with older age and negative effects on health-related qual-ity of life. AIDS Patient Care and STDS 2013; 27:5–16.https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2012.0329PMID:
23305257
11. Guaraldi G; Palella F. J. Jr. Clinical implications of aging with HIV infection: perspectives and the future medical care agenda. AIDS. 31 Supplement 2:S129–S135, June 1, 2017.
12. Althoff KN, McGinnis KA, Wyatt CM, Freiberg MS, Gilbert C, Ourler KK, et al. Comparison of risk and age at diagnosis of myocardial infarction, end-stage renal disease, and non-AIDS-defining cancer in HIV-infected versus uninfected adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Feb 15; 60(4):627–38.https://doi.org/10. 1093/cid/ciu869PMID:25362204
13. Tesoriero JM, Gieryic SM, Carrascal A, Lavigne HE. Smoking among HIV positive New Yorkers: preva-lence, frequency, and opportunities for cessation. AIDS Behav 2010; 14:824–35https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10461-008-9449-2PMID:18777131
14. Friis-Moller N, Weber R, Reiss P, Thie´baut R, Kirk O, d‘Arminio Monforte A, et al. Cardiovascular dis-ease risk factors in HIV patients—association with antiretroviral therapy. Results from the DAD study. AIDS 2003; 17:1179–93.https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aids.0000060358.78202.c1PMID:12819520 15. Schouten J, Wit FW, Stolte IG, Kootstra NA, van der Valk M, Geerlings SE, et al. AGEhIV Cohort Study
Group. Cross-sectional comparison of the prevalence of age-associated comorbidities and their risk factors between HIV-infected and uninfected individuals: the AGEhIV cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Dec 15; 59(12):1787–97.https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu701PMID:25182245
16. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S et al. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet, 2013. 381:752–762.https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9PMID:23395245
17. Boyle PA, Buchman AS, Wilson RS, Leurgans SE, Bennett DA. Physical frailty is associated with inci-dent mild cognitive impairment in community-based older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010; 58: 248–55.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02671.xPMID:20070417
18. Saad F, Ro¨hrig G, von Haehling S,Traish A. Testosterone Deficiency and Testosterone Treatment in Older Men. Gerontology. 2017; 63(2):144–156https://doi.org/10.1159/000452499PMID:27855417 19. Varadhan R, Walston J, Cappola AR, Carlson MC, Wand GS, Fried LP. Higher levels and blunted
diur-nal variation of cortisol in frail older women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008; 63: 190–95. PMID:
18314456
20. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010; 39: 412–23.https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afq034PMID:20392703 21. Miller RA. The aging immune system: primer and prospectus. Science 1996; 273: 70–74. PMID:
8658199
22. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener, et al. Frailty in older adults: evi-dence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci2001; 56: M146–M156.
23. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging. Sci World J. 2001; 1:323–336.
24. Guaraldi G, Malagoli A, Theou O, Brothers TD, Wallace L, Torelli R, et al. Correlates of frailty phenotype and frailty index and their associations with clinical outcomes. HIV Med. 2017 Nov; 18(10):764–771.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hiv.12527PMID:28737297
25. Rockwood K, Mitnitski A Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007; 62:722–727. PMID:17634318
26. Mitnitski A, Howlett SE, Rockwood K. Heterogeneity of human aging and its assessment. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.2016;https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glw089PMID:27216811
27. Hoogendijk EO, Theou O, Rockwood K, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Deeg DJH, Huisman M, et al. Devel-opment and validation of a frailty index in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017 Oct; 29(5):927–933.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0689-0PMID:27896796
28. Rockwood K, Mitnitski A, Song X, Steen B, Skoog I. Long-term risks of death and institutionalization of elderly people in relation to deficit accumulation at age 70. J Am GeriatrSoc. 2006; 54(6):975–9.
29. Blodgett JM, Theou O, Howlett SE, Rockwood K. A frailty index from common clinical and laboratory tests predicts increased risk of death across the life course. Geroscience. 2017 Sep 2.
30. Guaraldi G, Brothers TD, Zona S, Stentarelli C, Carli F, Malagoli A, et al. A frailty index predicts survival and incident multimorbidity independent of markers of HIV disease severity. AIDS 2015; 29:1633– 1641.https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000753PMID:26372273
31. Justice AC, McGinnis KA, Skanderson M, Chang CC, Gibert CL, Goetz MB, et al. Towards a combined prognostic index for survival in HIV infection: the role of ‘non-HIV’ biomarkers. HIV Med. 2010; 11 (2):143–51.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1293.2009.00757.xPMID:19751364
32. Yeoh HL, Cheng AC, Cherry CL, Weir JM, Meikle PJ, Hoy JF, et al. Immunometabolic and Lipidomic Markers Associated With the Frailty Index and Quality of Life in Aging HIV+ Men on Antiretroviral Ther-apy. EBioMedicine. 2017 Aug; 22: 112–121. Published online 2017 Jul 18.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ebiom.2017.07.015PMID:28754302
33. Deeks SG, Lewin SR, Havlir DV. The end of AIDS: HIV infection as a chronic disease. Lancet 2013; 382:1525–33.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61809-7PMID:24152939
34. O¨ nen NF, Overton ET. A review of premature frailty in HIV-infected persons; another manifestation of HIV-related accelerated aging. Curr Aging Sci. 2011 Feb; 4(1):33–41. PMID:21204781
35. Singh H K, Del Carmen T, Freeman R, Glesby M J, and Siegler E L. From One Syndrome to Many: Incorporating Geriatric Consultation Into HIV Care, Clin Infect Dis 2017: 65 (1 August); 501.https://doi. org/10.1093/cid/cix311PMID:28387803
36. Guaraldi G and Rockwood K, Geriatric HIV medicine is born, Clin Infect Dis 2017 2017 Aug 1; 65 (3):507–509.https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix316PMID:28387817
37. Cesari M, Gambassi G, Abellan van Kan G, Vellas B. The frailty phenotype and the frailty index: differ-ent instrumdiffer-ents for differdiffer-ent purposes. Age & Ageing [serial online]. January 2014; 43(1):10–12.
38. Guaraldi G, Orlando G, Squillace N, De Santis G, Pedone A, Spaggiari A, et al. Multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of metabolic and morphologic alterations of HIV-related lipodystrophy. HIV Clin Trials 2006; 7:97–106.https://doi.org/10.1310/EYWJ-8B5K-X7VQ-9CPEPMID:16880166 39. Wallace LM, Ferrara M, Brothers TD, Garlassi S, Kirkland SA, Theou O, et al. Lower Frailty Is
Associ-ated with Successful Cognitive Aging Among Older Adults with HIV.AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2017 Feb; 33(2):157–163.https://doi.org/10.1089/AID.2016.0189PMID:27869500
40. Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K. A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatr.2008; 8:24.https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-8-24PMID:18826625
41. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA, & the Continence Program for Women Research Group. (1995). Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary inconti-nence in women: the Incontiinconti-nence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Neurol-ogy and Urodynamics, 14(2), 131–139.
42. Visvanathan R, Yu S, Field J, Chapman I, Adams R, Wittert G, et al. Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass: Development and Validation of Anthropometric Prediction Equations. J Frailty Aging. 2012; 1 (4):147–51.https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2012.23PMID:27093315
43. Edelman EJ, Gordon KS, Glover J, McNicholl IR, Fiellin DA, Justice AC. The next therapeutic challenge in HIV: polypharmacy. Drugs Aging 2013; 30:613–628.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-013-0093-9
PMID:23740523
44. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, Leveille SG, Markides KS, Ostir GV, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000 55:M221– M231. PMID:10811152
45. Roberts RE, Vernon SW. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: its use in a commu-nity sample Am J Psychiatry. 1983 Jan; 140(1):41–6.https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.140.1.41PMID:
6847983
46. Lawton M.P and Brody EM Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living.1969; Gerontologist 9:179–186. PMID:5349366
47. Chan KS, Kasper JD, Brandt J, Pezzin LE. Measurement equivalence in ADL and IADL difficulty across international surveys of aging: findings from the HRS, SHARE, and ELSA. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2012; 67:121–132.https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr133PMID:22156662
48. EuroQol Group (1990-12-01). "EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life". Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 16 (3):199–208. ISSN 0168–8510.https://doi.org/10. 1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9PMID:10109801.
49. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM, Littlejohns P.A self-complete measure of health status for chronic airflow limitation. The St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992 Jun; 145(6):1321–7.https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/145.6.1321PMID:1595997
50. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glo-merular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130:461–470. PMID:10075613
51. American Diabetes Association. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Sec. 2. In Standards of Medi-cal Care in Diabetes 2017. Diabetes Care 2017; 40(Suppl. 1):S11–S24. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-S005PMID:27979889
52. Pauwels RA, Buist AS, Calverley PM, Jenkins CR, Hurd SS, Committee GS. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. NHLBI/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) workshop summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001; 163(5):1256–1276.https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.163.5.2101039PMID:11316667 53. EASL–EASD–EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of non-alcoholic fatty liver
dis-ease. J Hepatol (2016), Available from:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2015.11.004.
54. Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N, Sola R, Correa MC, Montaner J, et al. Development of a simple non-invasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology 2006; 43:1317–1325.https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.21178PMID:16729309
55. Theou O, Brothers TD, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Operationalization of frailty using eight commonly used scales and comparison of their ability to predict all-cause mortality. J Am Geriatr Soc. 201361:1537–1551.
56. Rockwood K, Andrew M, Mitnitski A. A comparison of two approaches to measuring frailty in elderly people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007; 62:738–743. PMID:17634321
57. European AIDS Clinical Society. Guidelines for treatment of HIV-positive adults in Europe Available from:http://www.eacsociety.org/guidelines/eacs-guidelines/eacs-guidelines.html
58. Antinori A, Di Biagio A, Marcotullio S, Andreoni M, Chirianni A, d’Arminio Monforte A, et al. Italian HIV Guidelines Working Group Italian guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents and the diagnostic-clini-cal management of HIV-1 infected persons. Update 2016. New Microbiol. 2017 Apr; 40(2):86–98. PMID:28513816
59. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1993 revised classification system for HIV infection and expanded surveillance case definition for AIDS among adolescents and adults. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1992 Dec 18; 41(RR-17):1–19.
60. Palella FJ, Cole SR, Chmiel JS, Riddler SA, Visscher B, Dobs A, et al. Anthropometrics and examiner-reported body habitus abnormalities in the multicenter AIDS cohort study. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38:903– 907.https://doi.org/10.1086/381684PMID:14999638
61. Armstrong JJ, Andrew MK, Mitnitski A, Launer LJ, White LR, Rockwood K. Social vulnerability and sur-vival across levels of frailty in the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. Age Ageing. 2015 Jul; 44(4):709–12.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv016PMID:25758407
62. Wallace LM, Theou O, Pena F, Rockwood K, Andrew MK. Social vulnerability as a predictor of mortality and disability: cross-country differences in the survey of health, aging, and retirement in Europe (SHARE). Aging Clin Exp Res. 2015; 27:365–372.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-014-0271-6PMID:
25213145
63. Bunt S, Steverink N, Olthof J, van der Schans CP, Hobbelen. Social frailty in older adults: a scoping review. Eur J Ageing. 2017; Jan 31; 14(3):323–334.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-017-0414-7PMID:
28936141
64. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjo¨stro¨m M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity; 2003, Medicine & Science In Sports & Exer-cise 0195-9131/03/3508-1381https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000078924.61453
65. Romero-Ortuno R. An alternative method for Frailty Index cut-off points to define frailty categories. Eur Geriatr Med. 2013 Nov 1; 4(5).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2013.06.005PMID:24379896 66. Shi J, Yang Z, Song X, Yu P, Fang X, Tang Z, et al. Sex differences in the limit to deficit accumulation in
late middle aged and older Chinese people: results from the Beijing Longitudinal Study of Aging. J Ger-ontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun; 69(6):702–9.https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glt143PMID:
